DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on November 24, 2025 was received. Claims 1-2, 8, 10, 13-14 and 17-18 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued April 23, 2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 24, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitation “driving unit” no longer invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function interpretation because that limitation has been removed and replaced with the term “motor” which does convey sufficient structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13 recite the limitation "the tube body" in claims 1 and 13, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, claims 2 and 14 introduce “a flexible tube body” as a new limitation, which causes further confusion as to the scope of the claims. For the purposes of examination, “the tube body” in claims 1 and 13 is understood to be the same “flexible tube body” first introduced in claims 2 and 14, such that it is understood that the intention was to first introduce a “flexible tube body” in claims 1 and 13.
The previous rejections of claims 9 and 17 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn because Applicant amended the claims’ dependency such that the two incompatible embodiments no longer conflict.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Enoki et al. (JP 2002070748, translation filed on April 23, 2025 used for citation purposes) on claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 12 and 21 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claim 1 to include subject matter originally from claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enoki et al. in view of Yajima (KR 100751657, translation filed on April 23, 2025 used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1: Enoki et al. discloses a torsion pump having a tube (41) with an inner volume which is a pump chamber communicating with an opening (517) on one side and another opening (527) on the other, which are a chemical liquid inlet and outlet, as well as a motor (2) which drives rotation of the tube to twist or untwist it thus imparting rotational force to cause the liquid within the tube (41) to flow one way or the other (page 5, figures 1-4).
Enoki et al. further discloses that the tube (41) can be surrounded by a support cylinder (33) which protects the tube (41) such that it is a sealing case surrounding the tube (41) having the same cross sectional shape as the tube (page 6, figure 2), where there is an offset space provided between the support cylinder (33) and the tube (41) (page 6, figure 2). While Enoki et al. does not explicitly disclose that this is designed to limit the twist of the tube, the limitation “to limit twist of the tube” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case the offset space between the support cylinder (33) and tube (41) is capable of limiting twist of the tube.
Enoki et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the tube (41) has a multi-leaf shape in cross section. However, Yajima discloses a similar flexible tube (20) for a fluid supply pump which has a three-leaf cross section (pages 5-6, figures 3-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a tube with a multi-leaf cross section as taught by Yajima for the tube of Enoki et al. because Yajima teaches that this allows for a larger amount of liquid to be supplied with fewer contractions of the tube and allows for a smaller tube housing (page 6). Yajima further teaches that the in the three-leaf cross section embodiment the tube (20) is surrounded by portions of the case (45) having the same cross section (fig. 8c), just like in Enoki et al.
Regarding claim 2: Enoki et al. discloses that the tube (41) can twist and untwist such that it is flexible, and has two connector caps (51, 52) which are flanges, the latter of which is connected to the rotation shaft (21) of the motor (2) such that it rotates (page 4, figure 1).
Regarding claim 3: Enoki et al. discloses that the first connector cap (51) is provided with the opening (517) and the second connector cap (52) is provided with the other opening (527), either of which can be considered either an inlet or outlet as they supply fluid in either direction (page 5, figure 1).
Regarding claim 5: Enoki et al. discloses that the support cylinder (33) has a cylindrical shape (page 6, figure 2).
Regarding claim 6: Enoki et al. discloses that the tube (41) can be partially filled with an incompressible fluid (412) such that the support cylinder (33) which surrounds the tube (41) is filled with both the tube (41) and the incompressible fluid (412) therein (page 7, figure 4c).
Regarding claim 8: Enoki et al. discloses a rotation shaft (21) of the motor (2) which is installed on the tube (41) via the second connector cap (22) to transmit rotational force to the tube (41) (pages 4-5, figure 1).
Regarding claim 10: Enoki et al. and Yajima disclose the above combination having the multi-leaf cross-section for the tube (20). Yajima further discloses that four-leaf cross sections have also been known to be used (page 6, figure 6) for these types of tubes, and while Yajima teaches that this shape causes problems for the exact type of pressurization used in the apparatus of Yajima, it nonetheless would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the four-leaf shape of Yajima for the tube of Enoki et al. because Yajima teaches that it is a known arrangement for this type of tube pump (page 6), and while Yajima teaches away from using this cross-section in a linearly reciprocating tube pump, one of ordinary skill in the art would still be motivated to try using it in a torsion pump in order to determine if the same drawbacks occur, and because trying from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regarding claim 12: Enoki et al. discloses that the inner diameter of the tube (41) can be different at one end (51) than the other end (52) (page 7, figure 4a).
Regarding claim 21: Enoki et al. shows that the offset space between the tube (41) and support cylinder (33) is provided with a uniform width (see figure 3).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enoki et al. and Yajima as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12 and 21 above, and further in view of Roelofs (US 2002/0194933).
Regarding claim 9: Enoki et al. fails to explicitly disclose that a rotating member is provided on the middle of the tube body. However, Roelofs discloses a similar torsion pump which has a motor (53) at one end that supplies rotational force to a rotating disk (53) at the center of the tube (31) (pars. 36-38, 48, figures 3 and 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a rotating disk member as taught by Roelofs at the center of the tube (41) of Enoki et al. because Roelofs shows that it is a functionally equivalent mechanism for causing rotation and twisting/untwisting of a torsion pump and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 11: Enoki et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the tube (41) has a helically twisted structure around a core. However, Roelofs discloses a similar torsion pump in which the hose (31) is wound around a central axis which is a core (par. 37), where it would need to be wound helically to advance from the inflow port (31a) to the outflow port (32a) (par. 38, figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a helically wound tube around a central axis as taught by Roelofs rather than the straight tube (41) of Enoki et al. because Roelofs teaches that this is a preferred arrangement for a torsion pump which provides better reproducibility (par. 37).
Claims 13-15, 18, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naitou et al. (US 2020/0290080) in view of Enoki et al. and Yajima.
Regarding claim 13: Naitou et al. discloses a chemical liquid supply apparatus having a pump (205) for supplying a coating solution to a nozzle (142), a buffer tank (202) which temporarily stores solution to be pumped to the nozzle (142), a bottle (201) which contains the coating solution that will be stored in the buffer tank (202), and a filter (203) provided on a path between the buffer tank (202) and the pump (205) (pars. 90-94, figure 6). Naitou et al. discloses that the pump is intended to suck and feed the coating solution and can be, for example, a diaphragm pump as a variable displacement pump, but fails to explicitly mention that it includes a tube with a driving unit for transmitting rotational force to the tube to twist it.
However, Enoki et al. discloses a torsion pump having a tube (41) with an inner volume which is a pump chamber communicating with an opening (517) on one side and another opening (527) on the other, which are a chemical liquid inlet and outlet, as well as a motor (2) which drives rotation of the tube to twist or untwist it thus imparting rotational force to cause the liquid within the tube (41) to flow one way or the other (page 5, figures 1-4). Enoki et al. further discloses that the tube (41) can be surrounded by a support cylinder (33) which protects the tube (41) such that it is a sealing case surrounding the tube (41) (page 6, figure 2), where there is an offset space provided between the support cylinder (33) and the tube (41) (page 6, figure 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a torsion pump as taught by Enoki et al. instead of the diaphragm pump (205) of Naitou et al. because Enoki et al. teaches that such a torsion pump eliminates problems of cost and complexity associated with other types of pumps (pages 1-2).
Enoki et al. teaches that the tube (41) can be surrounded by a support cylinder (33) which protects the tube (41) such that it is a sealing case surrounding the tube (41) having the same cross sectional shape as the tube (page 6, figure 2), where there is an offset space provided between the support cylinder (33) and the tube (41) (page 6, figure 2). While Enoki et al. does not explicitly disclose that this is designed to limit the twist of the tube, the limitation “to limit twist of the tube” is deemed to be a statement with regard to the intended use and is not further limiting in so far as the structure of the apparatus is concerned. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case the offset space between the support cylinder (33) and tube (41) is capable of limiting twist of the tube.
Naitou et al. and Enoki et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the tube (41) has a multi-leaf shape in cross section. However, Yajima discloses a similar flexible tube (20) for a fluid supply pump which has a three-leaf cross section (pages 5-6, figures 3-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a tube with a multi-leaf cross section as taught by Yajima for the tube of Naitou et al. and Enoki et al. because Yajima teaches that this allows for a larger amount of liquid to be supplied with fewer contractions of the tube and allows for a smaller tube housing (page 6). Yajima further teaches that the in the three-leaf cross section embodiment the tube (20) is surrounded by portions of the case (45) having the same cross section (fig. 8c), just like in Enoki et al.
Regarding claim 14: Naitou et al. and Enoki et al. disclose the above combination in which the tube (41) can twist and untwist such that it is flexible, and has two connector caps (51, 52) which are flanges, the latter of which is connected to the rotation shaft (21) of the motor (2) such that it rotates (Enoki et al. page 4, figure 1).
Regarding claim 15: Naitou et al. and Enoki et al. disclose the above combination where Enoki et al. discloses that the tube (41) can be partially filled with an incompressible fluid (412) such that the support cylinder (33) which surrounds the tube (41) is filled with both the tube (41) and the incompressible fluid (412) therein (Enoki et al. page 7, figure 4c).
Regarding claim 18: Enoki et al. and Yajima disclose the above combination having the multi-leaf cross-section for the tube (20). Yajima further discloses that four-leaf cross sections have also been known to be used (page 6, figure 6) for these types of tubes, and while Yajima teaches that this shape causes problems for the exact type of pressurization used in the apparatus of Yajima, it nonetheless would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the four-leaf shape of Yajima for the tube of Enoki et al. because Yajima teaches that it is a known arrangement for this type of tube pump (page 6), and while Yajima teaches away from using this cross-section in a linearly reciprocating tube pump, one of ordinary skill in the art would still be motivated to try using it in a torsion pump in order to determine if the same drawbacks occur, and because trying from a finite number of solutions is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E).
Regarding claim 20: Naitou et al. and Enoki et al. disclose the above combination where Enoki et al. shows that the inner diameter of the tube (41) can be different at one end (51) than the other end (52) (Enoki et al. page 7, figure 4a).
Regarding claim 22: Naitou et al. and Enoki et al. show that the offset space between the tube (41) and support cylinder (33) is provided with a uniform width (see Enoki et al. figure 3).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naitou et al. in view of Enoki et al. and Yajima as applied to claims 13-15, 18, 20 and 22 above, and further in view of Roelofs.
Regarding claim 17: Naitou et al. and Enoki et al. disclose the above combination where a rotation shaft (21) of the motor (2) is a rotating member installed on the tube (41) via the second connector cap (22) to transmit rotational force to the tube (41) (Enoki et al., pages 4-5, figure 1) but fail to explicitly disclose that it or another rotating member is provided on the middle of the tube body. However, Roelofs discloses a similar torsion pump which has a motor (53) at one end that supplies rotational force to a rotating disk (53) at the center of the tube (31) (pars. 36-38, 48, figures 3 and 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a rotating disk member as taught by Roelofs at the center of the tube (41) of Naitou et al. and Enoki et al. because Roelofs shows that it is a functionally equivalent mechanism for causing rotation and twisting/untwisting of a torsion pump and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 19: Naitou et al. and Enoki et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the tube (41) has a helically twisted structure around a core. However, Roelofs discloses a similar torsion pump in which the hose (31) is wound around a central axis which is a core (par. 37), where it would need to be wound helically to advance from the inflow port (31a) to the outflow port (32a) (par. 38, figure 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a helically wound tube around a central axis as taught by Roelofs rather than the straight tube (41) of Naitou et al. and Enoki et al. because Roelofs teaches that this is a preferred arrangement for a torsion pump which provides better reproducibility (par. 37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Enoki et al. does not explicitly discuss the support cylinder having an offset to limit the twist of the tube and that Yajima does not teach a sealing case with a circumferential shape corresponding to a cross-section of the tube body.
In response:
Regarding Enoki et al. and the support cylinder, Applicant is repeating the same argument which was previously responded to. The limitations regarding the offset space being designed “such that twisting of the tube body is limited by contact with the sealing case” is being treated as a property of the apparatus, because nothing about this limitation involves a specific structural feature being designed in a certain way. If Applicant wishes to more particularly define this property then Applicant must point out the specific structure of the offset space or case which gives the tube this property- some feature such as thickness of the sealing case with respect to the tube or the exact offset distance/radius, which would help more distinctly point out and explain the specifics of the device which achieves this property. As it is, this property remains an inherent one when presented with the same apparatus, as Enoki et al. and Yajima disclose, despite no explicit discussion of the offset space limiting the twisting of the tube. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Yajima, Applicant has pointed to one specific figure but other embodiments do show a case having the same cross-sectional shape as the tube, particularly figure 8c annotated below. This shows that Yajima does include a part of the case surrounding the tube as a “sealing case” which retains an offset from the tube and therefore, based on the property associated with this feature discussed in the claims, limits the twisting of the tube body by contact with the case. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
352
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
1/28/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717